Sunday, 9 March 2014

Cock-up or Conspiracy? A fake dichotomy

*

In England there is a (military-slang) phrase which purports to describe the alternatives for why-things-go-wrong - Cock-up or Conspiracy - which means incompetence and stupidity, versus an organized plan.

This phrase, and the attitude it represents- is a fake dichotomy, false alternative, dishonest choice; and is covertly-intended to dismiss the possibility that significant groups of powerful people operate strategically to do harm.

*

The C-up v Consp idea is that incompetence is so common in human affairs, that anything which goes wrong can (and should) be explained by stupid accidents, rather than deliberate purpose.

Therefore when deliberate purpose is observed, inferred from a long-term and repeating pattern of behaviour, it can be dismissed as naive 'conspiracy theorizing'.

*

But stupidity is not fatal so long as people are honest and well-motivated - because honest and well-motivated people can perceive and learn from obvious errors even when they are stupid; and avoid repeating them.

Stupid people do not put their hand into the fire twice, when it hurts a lot the first time.

Pure stupidity does not explain denial of the harm of harmful outcomes, or persistence in voluntary actions which wholly fail in their purposes and lead to all-round bad outcomes.

*

On the other hand, although human conspiracies by wicked people are very common, indeed universal, they usually fall-apart from short-term selfishness and attempted exploitation among the conspirators - orc-ish squabbling and mutual slaughter.

But conspiracy is not the proper concept to understand these phenomena - what we are talking about is pursuit of a long term strategy.

*

People who share a long term strategy have no need to 'conspire' in order to cooperate.

People who share a long term strategy will repeatedly put their hands (or somebody else's hands) into the fire - because they are more interested in the long term plans than in immediate consequences.

People who share a long term strategy will agree to deny harmful consequences, will lie about benefits that don't exist, will persist in doing things which seem to lead to much harm and no good - IF these actions serve their strategic purposes.

*

Looked at in this way, it is crystal clear that the leadership of The West (US/ UK/ Europe especially) have a long term strategy upon which they agree (so there is no need to 'conspire') - and we can see this because they behave quite differently from stupid people.

In particular, it is not explicable in terms of incompetence that Western foreign policy again-and-again has an anti-Christian strategic purpose - because the anti-Christian outcomes are ignored, denied and hidden; and because there is a pattern, and because the strategy is pursued despite immediate-term and severe disadvantages to the West.

More generally, Western foreign policy is overall very obviously destructive of Good - and this is not a cock-up but is strategic; because only strategy can explain the pattern of denial, dishonesty, repetition and short-termist self-harm.

A foreign policy designed and implemented by stupid people, a series of cock-ups - would be much more rational, more beneficial, much better - than what we have had for the past half century.

*

Western leaders really are operating in service of evil and in pursuit of destruction.

To believe otherwise is wishful thinking: just naive.

The extent to which their service to evil is deliberate or unsuspecting is more debate-able - but the increase in public lying and elaborate propaganda shows that the balance is changing.

As the consequences of their cooperative strategies get plainer, so more and more of the Western elite are actively planning destruction, wittingly embracing evil.

I think the best way to understand the behavior of the Western elites is to consider that PC (the Left) is a fanatical non-theistic religion.

Rousseau was the founder of the PC religion (based on medieval nominalism and Descartes). His main dogma is that men was naturally good (rejection of the Original Sin), so the paradise on Earth was achievable if only the society was changed.

Other intellectuals (prophets) have brought important aspects. In general, an inversion of values has taken place. What in Christianity was good is bad in PC religion and the other way around.

Only seeing PC as a fanatical religion can some of its aspects be understood.

- The fanaticism of progressive masses when the doctrine is challenged and the hate for those groups that challenge it.

- The disregard to any data that is against to the theory (so scientific studies that show non-liberal results are forgotten and disregarded).

- The imposition of censoring to any other opinion. Censoring can have many forms: selection only of orthodox thinkers (mass media), lack of funding for non-orthodox opinions (science), removal of people that dare to challenge the dogma (and three examples of this come to my mind).

- The social shaming of people that do not agree so these people resort to self-censorship.

- The foreign policy devoted to extend the PC Gospel. Sanctions to countries that do not follow this gospel, wars, etc.

- The obsession and paranoia with the previous religion (Christianity), which has to be completely destroyed and replaced, because it is evil (according to PC) and a rival for the hearts of men.

We are progressing to a totalitarianism (theocracy without God) like that of XXX religion. Our new PC religion does not only demands compliance but also pure thought. No dissent is going to be tolerated because, in the minds of PC people, this means tolerating evil.

@Imn - What you say is not factually wrong, PC is a religion in the sense you describe; but I don't think it is likely to be helpful.

PC is a religion in the same sense, a limited sense, that devil worship is a religion; which is to say PC is not a coherent world view or way of life, instead PC (like demonism) is a project for piecemeal, incremental destruction: destruction of that which is good (virtue, beauty, truth).

In THIS sense, PC is NOT a religion like other religions. All other religions are partial truths; but PC is not. Of course at any given time point PC has truthful aspects - but as a long term project all of these truths are susceptible to subversion, denial and inversion.

Therefore, over time, PC is wholly false, in the sense of having no core, stable, assumed truths at all.